Does anyone know the rationale behind USMS rule 103.13.1(B)(1)? Specifically, this says that in order for an initial distance split to count as an "official time" (and thus, eligible for records, top-ten, etc.), the swimmer must notify the meet referee in writing before the end of the meet.
Does anyone know why we insist on this level of administrivia? This means that, technically, even as a meet director... if I notice that someone's 1000 split on their 1650 would be a new record... it's not a new record unless I remind the swimmer him/herself to write down on a piece of paper "Please make my split time count", and hand it to the referee. Before they leave the pool at the end of the meet.
In USA Swimming, the paperwork isn't necessary. Your 1000 split counts, without any paperwork, as long as it's valid, you finished the event, etc., etc. But you don't need silly paperwork.
So why do we insist on this paperwork in USMS? This seems like something that is doing us all a massive disservice as I'm sure many many potential records and top ten performances are being missed. If you swim a 1650, and your initial 1000 was a certain time... then your initial 1000 was that time, regardless of any paperwork you submit by the end of the meet.
(This is separate from setting up an expectation that these splits will be automatically submitted. That's a separate issue. My only issue is that if the swimmer does not write something down on a post-it note, that the window of opportunity closes, and there is no way to un-close the window the way the rulebook is written.)
I suppose the solution is to amend the disclaimer/waiver language for our meet entries to include a sentence "I HEREBY REQUEST TO THE REFEREE THAT EVERY INITIAL DISTANCE OF EVERY EVENT THAT I SWIM BE CONSIDERED AS AN OFFICIAL TIME.", and then that part of the rule is satisfied. If the USMS Rules Committee insists, I can photocopy all of our entry forms, and hand them to the Referee before the end of the meet.
-Rick
I think this makes sense. The converse also perplexes me, say you put a 2:20 for your 200 but swim the first 100 in :50 and the balance in the next 100. Doesn't that adversely impact those in your heat also, seeing the rabbit go out. I know, I know, swim your own race but we all look around a little bit.
This is why you are encouraged to tell the referee, so that it can be announced before the race. Rule 103.8.3(B) allows (but does not require) the starter to announce that someone is going for a split in an initial distance.
It would also be good sportsmanship for the swimmer in question to merely advise those swimmers around "Hey - just so you know, I'm going for the 100 split, so I'll be out really fast." That goes a long way.
One thing this brings up is that there are two different (I think) types of "initial distance" splits. There are those that you go out for, and those that you get in the matter of normal swimming.
For example, in the 1650 freestyle.... You could go all-out for the first 50 to get your 50 split, and then swim a 1600 warmdown afterward. Or, you could swim the 1650 as a normal swim, and look to get your 500 and 1000 splits along the way... but you're still looking for a "good" 1650 time.
The initial distance situations I'm thinking more about (in this thread) are the latter... especially since many of these "accidental" early splits might not be as intentional.
If you're going for a 100 split in the 200 free... you know you're going after it. To me, that's a different situation. (Though isn't, and shouldn't be, treated any different from a rules perspective.)
-Rick
I think this makes sense. The converse also perplexes me, say you put a 2:20 for your 200 but swim the first 100 in :50 and the balance in the next 100. Doesn't that adversely impact those in your heat also, seeing the rabbit go out. I know, I know, swim your own race but we all look around a little bit.
This is why you are encouraged to tell the referee, so that it can be announced before the race. Rule 103.8.3(B) allows (but does not require) the starter to announce that someone is going for a split in an initial distance.
It would also be good sportsmanship for the swimmer in question to merely advise those swimmers around "Hey - just so you know, I'm going for the 100 split, so I'll be out really fast." That goes a long way.
One thing this brings up is that there are two different (I think) types of "initial distance" splits. There are those that you go out for, and those that you get in the matter of normal swimming.
For example, in the 1650 freestyle.... You could go all-out for the first 50 to get your 50 split, and then swim a 1600 warmdown afterward. Or, you could swim the 1650 as a normal swim, and look to get your 500 and 1000 splits along the way... but you're still looking for a "good" 1650 time.
The initial distance situations I'm thinking more about (in this thread) are the latter... especially since many of these "accidental" early splits might not be as intentional.
If you're going for a 100 split in the 200 free... you know you're going after it. To me, that's a different situation. (Though isn't, and shouldn't be, treated any different from a rules perspective.)
-Rick
